About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 12
SFGTV2 10
CSPAN 4
LINKTV 2
SFGTV 2
WUSA (CBS) 2
CNNW 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
LANGUAGE
English 42
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)
countries like china and russia, along with our traditional allies and a number of other states across the world have stepped up to impose the sanctions together. and you saw in the intervention in libya. we're not only our traditional european allies but our arab friends also stepped in to intervene in their own backyard. that is not leading from behind. that is leading in a way that enables others to step up, share the burdens, and be part of the solution. i think that, you know, this president has adopted a very strong and smart approach to the american leadership using all of the instruments of our national power. the military, when we must, but also much stronger on diplomacy, economic instruments and so forth. when it comes to defense and defense spending, i think this is a big difference between the two campaigns. this president has put forward a very, you know, a defense budget that is strategic in that sense it is driven by strategy but it's also driven by the legal constraints of the law that has been put in place, the budget control act those passed by a bipartisan majority
together 22 nations to include russia and new zealand for the first time. some 22,000 airmen and seamen to build a relationship in the event of the next natural disaster or crisis that happened in the pacific theater, we have a collective group of nations to preserve humanity, life, liberty and justice. whether we're building partnerships at home or aboard, we know our navy, your navy on the west coast cannot do what we do without your support. i thank you again this morning for making what we do possible, and more importantly, i want to thank you for understanding the importance of what your sea services do. i think you'll enjoy the parade of ships this morning. i can recall last year we sat here waiting for the fog to lift. we saw an advertisement of an insurance company offering new low rates. we made vital use of the time. i'm excited you're all here and will see the parade of ships and the blue angels air show. thank you very much. [applause] >> we're going to modify the program here because the admiral wants to make a presentation to somebody that has been important to fleet week
francisco today. we bought naval forces from the united states, from russia and japan all to honolulu where we had simulated a tsunami disaster. and these three great nations brought their fleets to honolulu exercising how to respond and alleviate that disaster. well, that was then. how about now? last year the united states released a new security strategy. most of you probably have not even heard of that, but i have to tell you this was a big deal. it was one of the fifth american security strategies that we have issued since the civil war. among the highlights of that security strategy was a strong statement that the united states had the highest economic and security interests in the asia pacific region. not in europe as has been for 100 years prior to that, than the asia pacific region. secondly, that we would maintain freedom of access throughout that region. in particular, we would maintain the sea lanes in that area, whatever the challenge might be. even as we reduce our defense budget, therefore we must maintain and would maintain a powerful navy, and that that navy would be charge
. >> russia is a boogey man? that's like 20 years ago. it's not the place they need to be. they are trying to make a stand. >> and the war on terrorism has lost the political legs, so what it is you're going to use to beat the american people over the head on national security is very different now so the approach that the obama administration has been taking which is actually a workable approach when the world has changed as much as it is. >> and -- >> obama has done a great job on national security, the republican predecessor did such a bad job. that's a hard thing for the republicans to live it. >> and it's reflected in the deeper bench on the democratic side. there are so many people that can come in that are qualified and serve in the pentagon and other departments. the republicans would have been hard pressed to >> with the election over, -- known apartment sequestration must become the top priority. defense and non-defense accounts will take a 10% hit. threatening to tip an improving but still fragile economy back into recession. president obama's already exempted military manpower
note just in passing that my wife's father, my father-in-law was born in russia, emigrated to the united states, like the rabbi and senator kohl's father. mr. president, it took four months but the republicans will finally realizing their way back from the fiscal cliff has been right in front of them all along. in july the senate passed legislation to give economic certainty to 98% of american families and to small businesses, to every american making less than $250,000 a year. for four months we've been one vote away for from a solution to this looming crisis. they've held the middle-class hostage to protect the richest 2% of taxpayers, people who enjoyed a decade of ballooning income and shrinking tax bills. one has to admire the president, who went out and campaigned on this issue. he didn't -- he didn't in any way walk away from the issue. he said that's how we're going to get our fiscal house in order. and independents by a huge margin, democrats by a huge margin, and 41e% of republicans support what the president asked us to do. now, reasonable republicans are coming
, the house had one bill on the agenda, the bill that would normalize u.s. trade relations with russia and that passed by a vote of 365-43. the senate has yet to take up their version of the measure. a capitol hill reporter fills in the details. >> sports of this bill normalizing trade relations with russia are saying it's long overdue and good for the nation's economy. why is that? >> well, it >> it will hopefully double exports to russia from the united states. it will go across a broad group of products. manufacturers are backing it strongly. it could be airplanes and parts associated with that. locomotives, chemicals, food, clothing. it seems russia likes u.s. products. we expect there to be good and quick growth. >> how is lining up to oppose it? >> it has wide support on capitol hill. even the administration backs the bill. it does seem to have broad support across washington and the country for businesses that want to export products to russia. >> with all of the legislation and that remains to be done in the lame-duck session, this is the first one. what are the prospects in th
's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, it's the soviet union. she said was that? but it's a big thing back in the late 80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight them and most of us have never considered iraq or knew who saddam hussein was. after that war was over, which when it was a foregone conclusion, the terrorists and they took us all by surprise. we thought they were rabble-rousers. never given too much credit. interestingly enough, all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction company and had the bin laden stamps and buildings. how's that for irony? after that, things kind of change. the world trade in their bombing and september 11, we all know what happened that day. i was flying up winning. we came back from the middle east from another rotation in the monday, september 10 was their first day back. the morning of september 11th is actually flying in it come down very, very early. somebody said hey come you got to look at this. remember the key not the first tower building, what morons could hit tower of that size on a clear day? i tho
to their estimates, will overtake saudi arabia and russia as the world's top oil producer by 02017. beneficiary by 2017. the i.e.a. chief economist told a news conference in london that he believed the united states would overtake russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015 and by 2017 would become the world's largest oil producer producer. will this prediction hold out? i don't know. but are we on our way towards significant gains in terms of our energy independence? yes, we are. the language in section 313, which this amendment proposes to strike -- i want to be very clear about this -- does not affect programs that have been discussed here in such areas as hydrogen fuel as a fuel of choice for engine design or doing away with r&d dollars. it is just not true. it states in part that this restriction goes to the cost of producing or purchasing alter national fuels if they exceed the cost of producing traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose -- that's very narrowly defined. there is a second paragraph in section 313 that goes to an exception to this
area of the world in which most of threats and challenges. it's not a rising china. it's not a russia seeking to regain its power and stature. real threat to american interests seems to be coming from a broken and dysfunctional middle east in which we're stuck and his problem. and had mitt romney become president as well, middle east is divided into migraines on one hand and root canal operations on the other. there are not a lot of opportunities for solutions. >> gregg: pick your poison. you are right. let's talk specifics. let's talk about iran first. you believe that the president should explore and exhaust diplomacy before you are taking military action. you are very specific. let's put this on the screen. you write this, start with an interim arrange. that deals with the issue of enrichment and forestalls resign to acquire highly enriched uranium to construct a nuke. how can you convinces them to do that? >> the problem is once a society gets to enrich uranium and a assemble a nuclear weapon. how do you forestall it? you can't bomb it out of existence. unless you can change the r
, others is an autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as autocratic regimes in the book, and i don't want see any problem with the -- i don't see any problem with the united states pushing those countries if they can, not by force. we could do it or not do it, that's a policy decision. and then, of course, there's radical islam which also is a type of -- would like to establish sharia as the constitutional structure in some countries. so there are different types of political systems, and i'm saying the philadelphia sovereignty is my preferred system. and also i think it's the best system. >> thank you for your presentation. i thought it was excellent. we see this stuff happening all the time, but you've captured it in very vivid, contrasting subjects, sovereignty or submission. and in the u.n. now there are other things being negotiated that would further weaken our sovereignty or cause us to be sub missive. so i'm wondering what your actions are. when i look at the country, some huge percentage wouldn't even know what you're talking about. then you get into
from the beginning. i thought he may have voted the same way barack did. he went from labeling russia, which he recently called the soviet union, labeling russia are most significant geopolitical foe -- let me tell you something, he also was opposed to the new start treaty which every single solitary former republican secretary of state, republican national security adviser, republican secretary of defense was for. he was against it. he said he would have never supported it. all of a sudden -- i tell you. it is amazing. we can work with russia, we can be very close with russia. [laughter] he went from harshly criticizing us to saying we will and we will turn over for responsibility to the afghan military at the end of 2014. [applause] he went from saying we should never have set a timetable, he would not do that. i had a debate, too, with ryan. [applause] in my day, he was talking about more troops in the east, more americans would be there -- we should not have set a date. then along comes romney -- my generation has gone on the wings of a snow white dove, preaching -- preaching love
so without opposition. while it is true that russia and china did not interfere with the rest going into iraq in that way, the iraqi people did. the iraqi people were educated, mobilized. they had a big pharmaceutical industry, petrochemicals, and they were wired, educated. they inflicted damage along the u.s. military along the way, both from sunni and shiite. many iraqis never accepted the idea of a foreign occupation of their country, and it failed. the project for a new american century, formulated as a proposition that the u.s. could be an empire on the old british model, that crashed and burned because people are now mobilized, politically and socially. it was the lack of mobilization in the old 19th century, when people were not literate, were not connected with each other -- ok, and maybe the british empire could exist. but that is not the situation any more. what i am saying is, petraeus was sent to these countries with the project from the new american century, the big new conservative thinkers who thought up these kinds of projects for occupation and reformulation of coun
korea, north korea, russia and japan all have leadership succession or elections during that year. it inevitably makes the top leaders focused inward on leadership issues, very unwilling to appear to be in any way weak abroad and so forth. 2013 is the opposite. you would expect the new leaders knowing they have to deal with each other for years to come potentially have a more positive agenda looking forward. how do we build something that's not going to impose high costs is and have few benefits? every one of those leaders has enormous domestic problems that they have to confront, and they want some more space to pursue that. so i think there's an underlying, you know, the kind of underlying tectonic plates are moving at a somewhat different direction in 2013. obviously, specific events can throw that out of whack, and if you look at the details, they're pretty tough. on xi personally, you know, he has evinced some, you know, he has some exposure to the u.s., he seems to enjoy being here when he's been here, he has good relations with vice president biden and so forth. he seems to
of russia initially when they went there to help the russian people, one of the first things they did with the help of the russians to two extreme poverty. my question is, is a risk too much for us so that we would a sickly state thank you and to let the door his shoe on the way out. >> obviously an indonesian case, part of that is just their farm are sensitive to questions of faith and we are so it's not infrequent we would behave in a way that doesn't take into account adequately their cultural sensitivities. this happens all the time and life. what's the right thing to do if someone isn't appreciative you didn't do anything wrong. don't worry about it and sometimes that happens. i wouldn't hesitate to help people unless someone related to the recipient weren't helped by their own kind. i would like to help. >> and i could add something to the indonesian case, there's a thing that exacerbated the relationship that made us were challenging for the ambassador. i'm sure we were still there when he was president wesley had a a policy decision here in the u.s. regarding the military enga
, potentially -- occasionally, and then russia. [laughter] and 70% of the world's energy is here. energy becomes so dray dramaticy contagious. what do you do? briefly over human rights. i do believe between democracy and dictatorship is this, a soft asset, but a very important one that why india does not record in human rights that, you know, necessarily be proud of, but they have accountability, and, therefore, i believe that whereas china could be a successful nation, it cannot be a modern nation, and it's only a modern nation if it permits democracy and if it permits secularism, the equality and presence of it. until then, it's successful, but not modern. >> james? >> three things very quickly. first, i want to just follow directly on the admiral's comments about the u.n. convention on the law of the sea. it is remarkable to many of the u.s. military that united states is not ratified the convention. we had a pretty sincere effort to bring it forward to the senate. we were a couple of votes short. i think senator my -- mikulski for the support. i think we can take that up again and get it don
that tokyo, st. petersburg, russia london the netherlands, all of them have some sort of storm surge barrier. but they are pricey. we're talking about however, $50 billion storm called sandy. >> where could they be built? >> realize that new york city is a victim of geography. it's like a funnel. if you have a gigantic storm coming in from the atlantic the power is concentrated as it goes past sandy point where it can savage staten island, inundate wall street and a second surge can come from the east river. so we need a barrier that gives us a comprehensive protection against this kind of storm surge. >> how much would it cost? >> well, we're talking about the fact that each of these barriers could cost about $1 billion. the whole thing would cost on the order of $10 billion, perhaps even $15 billion. >> show us how it works. >> here's how it works. there are three choke points whereby can you actually stop a storage surge. first, it's around arthur kill here around staten island. the other is around the verazano bridge. third, around the east river. each of these would
@megyn kelly in between now and the court. this one is not so funny. off we go to russia and new worries about the world's worst nuclear nightmare. more than 25 years after the meltdown at the chernoble tpaoubg lar plant workers in the soviet republican of ukraine are beginning to build a giant cap over the facility's still dangerously actor. trace gallagher has that story live from l.a. >> after the disaster the first reaction was to try and cap the radiation, right, to kind of contain it. so what they did is they built this concrete unit around reactor four. at the time they called it the 10,000 year tomb. it turns out the shelf life of that was only about 30 years, which is up in four years, so now they are in the process of building a new structure that looks kind of like a giant kwan sit hut or an ark. about as tall as the stat you've liberty. the plan is to kind of slide this thing using railroad tracks overreactor number four and then begin to dismantle the reactor. one of the big concerns you have is they have that big smokestack or chimney on reactor number 4. they have to tear that t
. realize that tokyo, st. petersburg russia have storm surge barriers but they are pricey. >> where could they be built? >> realize that new york city is like a funnel. if you have a gigantic storm coming in from the atlantic it's power is concentrated as it goes past sandy point where it can savage staten island, inundate wall street and a second surge can come in from the east river. so we need a barrier that gives us a comprehensive protection against this kind of storm surge. >> how much it would cost? >> well we're talking about the fact that each of these barriers could cost a billion. the whole thing would cost 10 billion even $15 billion. >> show us how it wosrks. >> there's three choke points where you could stop a storm surge. here around arctic hill. next near the verrazano-narrows bridge and the next one is here. if you want the cadillac you want to put one between sandy hook and the rockaways. that would cost on the order of $6 billion. >> sthalt money well spent >> think of it as an insurance policy because the whole package could go over $10 billion. but hey that's church c
alter u.s.-china russia confrontation such as the situation in gaza. a three-way relationship on beijing, washington and taipei is positive and quiet, as quiet as it's been over two decades. since that's the only issue on which there is any realistic prospect of armed conflict, and that is small thing. fifth, territorial disputes in the south china sea and east china sea are in my view the most troubling development. chinese confrontation with u.s. treaty allies, principally with japan create serious tensions and introduce unpredictability in the u.s.-china chip as well as offering an image of china's rise is unsettling to countries well beyond concerned rivals. finally, military deployments on both sides. i won't discuss those because i believe jonathan, jonathan pollack will do so in depth in his presentation. what do we expect them president obama's second term and she champagnes first. the main variable and the relationship is china. president obama has had for years to formulate and put in place an approach towards china. in broad terms it is consistent with that of his predecessor
that could drag nato into the war, russia warned. >> translator: as i already said, the main concern is that the more weapons there are, the greater the risk that they will be used. and also any provocation could trigger it. >> reporter: winter will be unkind to the regime and its opponents. more refugees will struggle in freezing temperatures. but worse weather will also make it harder for the regime's main advantage, air power to fly. the hardest month for syrians may still be ahead. joe, i should point out what we've just seen in the report many people most traveling the intense shelling of these damascus suburbs namely there it seems to be that the regime is unable to push into these rebel strongholds there and is resorting to this heavy bombardment. but i'm sure there are people in the inner circle around president bashar al assad perhaps feeling nervous tonight. joe. >> nick paton walsh in beirut. >>> some charities are worried they might need their own lifeline with the country on the brink of a fiscal cliff. that's next. and actually share . ♪ the lexus december to remember
combined mpg c-max hybrid. >> steve: quick headlines. nuclear powered submarine from russia coming within 200 miles of the united states in the atlantic. navy officials tell fox news of it not a provocative act and the u.s. detected the sub. that's good to know. today voters could make washington state the first state to legalize the sale and use of recreational marijuana, like alcohol. you would have to be over 21 to buy it. if it pass, the federal government would have the ability to challenge it legality. look for that. gretch, over to you. >> gretchen: back if 2008, they were all about hope and change when they voted for president obama. but four years later, they're now looking for change. frank luntz sat down with a group of ex-obama vote increase ohio and asked them why they're changing their vote and he joins me now. good morning to you, frank. >> good morning. that was a day where we had five different swing states, ohio, pennsylvania, virginia, florida, wisconsin. of all the places i visited, that in ohio, when we talked to those ex-obama voters, it was emotional as they talked
box there, bar is the aggregate of all of our potential challenger states including china and russia. it is a four to one advantage that we presently enjoy. if we rolled back to the cold war period, what you would see instead is the purple bar and the adversary bar were about equal. so what we've done is we've established over the past 20 years, we've established a four to one advantage in spending over our principal, um, and potential military competitors. when we hear that we can't reduce spending by 13%, what we're actually saying is that having a four to one advantage is not sufficient to allow a 13% rollback. this is the slide you saw initially, um, and again, it illustrates how national defense budget authority has changed over the past 60 years. at the very end of that slide, you'll see this purple line. that, the difference between these two illustrates what sequestration would do to the military. it is true that there's something of a cliff there. there's a cliff anyway, and that's in part because this chart does not take into account future war spending. we don't know what
with syria and russia. this is just over an hour. >> i am going to be very brief in introducing our two panelists. i think they are -- i am also going to be in the discussion, for which jonathan promised me two cookies instead of one, for doing double duty. i am not going to say anything substantive about this panel other than looking at the u.s. side of things and the regional side of things, they mesh very well and they also mesh with the first panel. i think we all know jeffrey. the founding director of the thornton center and the senior director at the nfc under president obama for the first two plus years i guess. he has written, by the way, a wonderful book accounting that time, which i think is probably available in the brookings bookstore, and which is probably a great read. jonathan is the current acting director of the thornton center, somebody i must say that, on a personal level, when he was out in the wilds of california, some place beyond the appellation, i think, i used to turn to his right things to understand what was going on in northeast asia. i did not know him, but
keep us reliant on foreign oil from -- let's just list the countries, madam president -- russia, venezuela, iraq, saudi arabia. i mentioned iran. it's poorly drafted and damaging to our security. instead, we have got an opportunity today to help our military and our country. this is how we move forward. this isn't about an environmental agenda or some kind of a green conspiracy. it's about doing the right thing, supporting our military brass and establishing a stronger national security and energy security posture in the years ahead. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike section 313. mr. president, as i conclude, i would ask for unanimous consent that senators gillibrand and tom udall be added to my amendment, number 2985 to s. 3254. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor to my colleague from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's my understanding the senator has a timing thing which he would like to have five minutes before my time begins. that's acceptable. first i would look to ask unanimous consent that cap
russia been here for 20 years. those are, quote. sick people that were planning to go ahead with this marathon even though they cancelled it people were furious that they were ever considering it. more in the next hour including someone who lost their home. guys back to you. >> dave briggs, thanks so much for that report. being at the heart of it. >> brian: knicks did played last night packed house. brooklyn put on on thursday. the knicks played unbelievable. the crowd seemed great. i was in dave and busters yesterday as well as the marriott. >> steve: because it was warm. >> brian: it was packed. they were happy for the distraction i believe because there were a lot of people there that didn't look like basketball fans. >> steve: needed something to cheer for and they got it. >> gretchen: now for your headlines. president obama ordering the military to send fuel to new york in the wake of hurricane sandy. gas shortages have sparked insanely long lines and left people panicked. gas will be rationed starting today at noon. people with license plates ending in odd number will
, first and foremost with a 49 capitals of the coalition. i also think the other capitals, iran, russia, china, all the countries that have interest in afghanistan. their calculus would be affected by signing a bilateral security agreement. more important, signing an agreement reflecting the commitment that was initially made in may 2012. >> i think it's a very important answer, and i have the same feeling, i think islamabad is the first couple that we affected by the pilots who could agreement, the whole argument refer to that part of the reason they continue to be tied to some elements of the pakistani government to terrorist groups like haqqani network and haqqani network and i is eyes, as they're hedging their bets for what happened the day after we leave if we're not leaving. presumably. they lose that argument. but there is, every situation is different, i can't help but relate this to iraq, that it seemed to me that nobody wanted our discussions with the iraqi government for our presence in iraq after our troops left to fail more than iran did. in fact, they were working on that,
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)